IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0277105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Automatic assessment of laparoscopic surgical skill competence based on motion metrics

Author

Listed:
  • Koki Ebina
  • Takashige Abe
  • Kiyohiko Hotta
  • Madoka Higuchi
  • Jun Furumido
  • Naoya Iwahara
  • Masafumi Kon
  • Kou Miyaji
  • Sayaka Shibuya
  • Yan Lingbo
  • Shunsuke Komizunai
  • Yo Kurashima
  • Hiroshi Kikuchi
  • Ryuji Matsumoto
  • Takahiro Osawa
  • Sachiyo Murai
  • Teppei Tsujita
  • Kazuya Sase
  • Xiaoshuai Chen
  • Atsushi Konno
  • Nobuo Shinohara

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to characterize the motion features of surgical devices associated with laparoscopic surgical competency and build an automatic skill-credential system in porcine cadaver organ simulation training. Participants performed tissue dissection around the aorta, dividing vascular pedicles after applying Hem-o-lok (tissue dissection task) and parenchymal closure of the kidney (suturing task). Movements of surgical devices were tracked by a motion capture (Mocap) system, and Mocap-metrics were compared according to the level of surgical experience (experts: ≥50 laparoscopic surgeries, intermediates: 10–49, novices: 0–9), using the Kruskal-Wallis test and principal component analysis (PCA). Three machine-learning algorithms: support vector machine (SVM), PCA-SVM, and gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), were utilized for discrimination of the surgical experience level. The accuracy of each model was evaluated by nested and repeated k-fold cross-validation. A total of 32 experts, 18 intermediates, and 20 novices participated in the present study. PCA revealed that efficiency-related metrics (e.g., path length) significantly contributed to PC 1 in both tasks. Regarding PC 2, speed-related metrics (e.g., velocity, acceleration, jerk) of right-hand devices largely contributed to the tissue dissection task, while those of left-hand devices did in the suturing task. Regarding the three-group discrimination, in the tissue dissection task, the GBDT method was superior to the other methods (median accuracy: 68.6%). In the suturing task, SVM and PCA-SVM methods were superior to the GBDT method (57.4 and 58.4%, respectively). Regarding the two-group discrimination (experts vs. intermediates/novices), the GBDT method resulted in a median accuracy of 72.9% in the tissue dissection task, and, in the suturing task, the PCA-SVM method resulted in a median accuracy of 69.2%. Overall, the mocap-based credential system using machine-learning classifiers provides a correct judgment rate of around 70% (two-group discrimination). Together with motion analysis and wet-lab training, simulation training could be a practical method for objectively assessing the surgical competence of trainees.

Suggested Citation

  • Koki Ebina & Takashige Abe & Kiyohiko Hotta & Madoka Higuchi & Jun Furumido & Naoya Iwahara & Masafumi Kon & Kou Miyaji & Sayaka Shibuya & Yan Lingbo & Shunsuke Komizunai & Yo Kurashima & Hiroshi Kiku, 2022. "Automatic assessment of laparoscopic surgical skill competence based on motion metrics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-13, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277105
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277105
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0277105&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0277105?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0277105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.